To the person or persons
who hacked and brought down this website
and my other websites, parts of
ashishsirohi.com, for three days starting Oct
5, 2013: did that make you happy, what is
happiness? We are addressing important matters, and this website offers a
blog where you can post your
opinion against me and/or
against what I put on my website; I don't delete arguments/opinions but
please say something intelligent, if possible.

Points out that
Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Derivation was based on Unstated Assumptions,
Invalidates that "Derivation" with an actual counter-example, gives correct
space and time equations, and points out a desktop experiment whose result would
end Relativity.

Go to Part II.Part
II deals with the issue in a wider sense and discusses:
Thomas Kuhn, The Messy Business called Physics, and the Powers-That-Be who Run
the Current Mess. Also examination of some of the arguments proactive
physicist-leaders have offered about the nature of Science, Religion and God;
Jokes (or attempts at humor) regarding today's physics and physicist-leaders
included..

1) below paper pointing out an
unstated assumption, and resulting
mistaken conclusion, made by the physics community 2) a unique
photon-experiment, suggested by Einstein, whose result would devastate modern
physics.

Unique photon-experiments are needed to
test Special Relativity's time dilation

Recent ingenious use of technology shows that it possible Right Now
to perform a photon-clock experiment that will further confirm (or disprove)
special relativity. Such an experiment (and its possibly devastating result to
the foundations of modern physics) is, we believe, months away, or years away
at latest if experimenters procrastinate. See below
letter
to Dr. James Chin-Wen Chouwhose team recently conducted
ingenious clock experiments that confirmed special relativity. What is
wrong with the clock they used? What is wrong is that, when it comes to motion,
matter behaves differently from light and therefore we need a light-based clock
(because time measurement in clocks is based on motion of its parts, exact
details in my paper).

There is no doubt that Special Relavity's two postulates are correct.
However, our paper explains a very basic difference in motion of matter vs.
light and suggests doing an experiment using a photon clock (means no ions or
atoms involved) moving in a certain manner. This experiment was actually
suggested by Einstein himself, but no one has ever tried to implement it
(because technology was lacking, but it seems it no longer is.) Getting rid of
the metal ion (matter) in Dr. Chou's experiment and doing the photon experiment
of Einstein would be a great technological feat. Relativity says this
would confirm that it actually is "time" itself that flows differently.
While agreeing that some clocks would confirm relativity, our paper
suggests that the photon experiment will give negative results because Einstein
was mistaken about the nature of time, as it relates to motion of matter and
light. So this suggested experiment of Einstein, which he thought would confirm
the basics of relativity, could actually end up disproving it. The real test is
to build the photon clock, and get away from the misleading darkness of material
clocks we have been experimenting with. It is time to upgrade the technological
capability and perform this experiment
suggested by Einstein.

Letter to Dr. James Chin-Wen Chou
about
testing special relativity using a photon-experiment.

Dear Esteemed Dr. Chou,

Congratulations on your recent unique special relativity experiment, and
the brilliantly creative use of available technology. However, there is another
version of the experiment I would like to suggest because no one has ever done
anything like it. Use a clock that avoids matter entirely. This experiment is
based on using a photon (and avoiding any material objects such as ions), and
testing using motion in a certain specific manner. This experiment was actually
suggested by Einstein himself, but no one has ever tried to it (because
technology was lacking, but it seems that is no longer the case, and this
combined with your unique talent can lead to pulling it off).

Please
check out my website http://www.physicsnext.org/ regarding
your recent special relativity experiment. My paper, "Space is discrete
for mass and continuous for light," is a simple read; do take a look at
the photon-based experimental situation mentioned there, which can lead to the
further verification (or nullification) of special relativity. For reference on
the theoretical issues in my paper you may contact Professor P.R. Holland of
Oxford University, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~gree0579/
or Professor Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/Lee-Smolin (named in
alphabetical order, no other reason for who is mentioned first).
[See below note added 2013 on contacting these professors.
Do NOT bother them for their further opinion.]

Almost
100% of physics professors would agree (and the above two are probably not an
exception) that anybody questioning special relativity today is a
crackpot; nevertheless, I feel these two professors are capable or
evaluating that there is no theoretical or mathematical flaw in my paper, and
realizing that it is consistent with both of Einstein's postulates. They have read
my paper, thought it may have been a while back. (I have not had any recent
communication with either of them and have NOT taken their permission to put
their names into this letter).

Getting rid of the metal ion (matter) in your experiment and doing the
photon experiment of Einstein would be a great technological feat. So I am
asking you to view the matter with an open your mind, and after your recent
experiments "confirming special relativity" (and gaining worldwide acclaim), do
consider doing this further experiment which Einstein suggested. You can do this
novel photon clock experiment to further show, in a dramatic way that moves
beyond only matter-based-clocks experimentation that has been done so far,
how correct special relativity is. However, be warned, that the experiment could
give a negative result and topple the theory so admired by you, your colleagues,
and by the entire entrenched physics bureaucracy. Given this possibility,
assuming you have the ability to do this experiment, you must consider
whether it is worth running the risk.

Update (do NOT bother the two professors mentioned in
above email):P.R. Holland replied in 2005 as Editor of Physics
Letter A, in response to my submission for publication: "I have
read your paper
with interest but regret that it is not suitable for publication"
(Emphasis mine), and he rejected the paper with that line and did not go to the
step of sending to referee(s). From his line and from correspondence with other
journal editors I got the feeling he is among the group of editors (as
I describe below) who accept, but do not seem to like, the religion-like
rigidity of the system that is forced upon them. I don't think he will
elaborate. His line is all we have and, the way I read it, I believe he has made
a clear statement.Lee Smolin: I emailed again recently and asked if he
thinks I am a "crackpot." Apparently he is not going to
give a verdict on that. Does NOT want to be bothered because of time
commitments, so please don't contact him. Smolin's interest in my paper was
because of his interest Doubly Special Relativity (DSR), but he is committed to
complicated DSR versions, including his own, that build on and extend the
foundations of relativity; we take a simple approach aimed specifically at
refuting the mathematical foundations (with a counterexample).

How come no one else ever suggested that Einstein's postulates could lead
to an alternative set of equations?

1. Well, there was someone else (as stated of top of this page). However,
so strong is that faith in "special relativity" that after the celebrated wide
acceptance of Einstein's 1905 theory (which took a couple of decades)
there has only been one respected physicist (details below) who has
dared questioned Einstein's "derivation." Just one, and believe me you cannot
claim that this person did not understand special relativity. He could
raise questions because he could rise above the "mediocre minds" for whom
special relativity had become a religion. We are hitching on to him because this
free-thinker cannot be dismissed by the relativity-worshipping powers-that-be.
So the words of this genius (quoted below) are support for our call for further
experimental testing of special relativity, and we have specified what kind of
experiment is needed.

2. Mediocre minds are seemingly incapable (more due to lack of
intellectual courage than lack of intellectual ability) of examining the 1905
derivation and its unstated assumptions. Blind Faith (not logic or intellectual
ability) prohibits them from questioning Einstein's sacred 1905 paper. As from
one generation of priests to next was passed the teaching that "the earth is the
center of the universe with everything revolving around it," so today from one
generation of physicists to next the sacred words of faith are passed stating
"special relativity is beyond doubt." There are thinkers in physics, but all
stop at the well-defined religious border -- the Lorentz transformations
(Einstein's 1905 paper) are not to be questioned.

3. Our paper gives not simply a suggestion that Einstein's postulates
could lead to an alternative set of equations, but our paper gives a counter-example to
Einstein's claim that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to
the Lorentz transformations. A counter-example is the worst thing that can
happen to a claim. It means the claim is history! But in today's world of
physics where there is limited intellectual freedom and little respect for
genuine independent thinking that goes against the accepted foundations, even
counter-examples don't matter; only physics dictatorial government matters --
what the controlling "mediocre minds" say goes, because they control the
journals and shut out "great spirits"! Yes, they know what a counter-example
means, but they ignore its meaning because they are persons of power and faith, not facts
and logic.

As Einstein noted, "Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds" and, unlike in Einstein's time when freedom
reigned in physics, today the "mediocre minds" have becoming dictatorial
controllers, who are determined to keep revolutionary papers out of journals. See below a perfect
example of the situation.

Physics
community's mistaken belief that Einstein's two 1905 postulates could only lead
to one possible set of equations (except for one highly-respected physicist who
broke from the crowd in mid-20th century and suggested
otherwise).

Einstein's special theory of relativity
starts with two postulates: (1) That all observers, irrespective of their own
motion, always see light travel at the same speed in a vacuum (2) The laws of
physics are the same in all (inertial) frames of reference. Stating with these
two assumptions Einstein derives space-time equations, known as the Lorentz
transformations. I have formulated an alternative set of equations consistent
with the two postulates, and shown how experiments can be done to decide whether
the Lorentz transformations or my equations are correct. The equations is my
paper also serve as a counter-example to
Einstein's claim that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to
the Lorentz transformations.

My paper accepts both the postulates of special relativity, but states that
light moves continuously through space while mass moves discretely. Velocity
addition rules for such motion are introduced, and from these the light
postulate of special relativity is derived. Two ways in which the theory differs
from Special Relativity is that it provides an explanation (by bringing in an
actual infinity for speed of light) for why an observer cannot catch up to light
and its motion equations do not contain any length contraction. (Einstein's
length contraction, yet to be experimentally tested, says that when an object
moves relative to you its length (as observed by you) contracts -- the faster an
object moves relative to you the shorter you will see its length to be). My
below paper says that both the postulates are correct but they do not imply
things such as length contraction. Our paper gives a specific experiment that
will show that while different observers may measure different times, there is
a basic flaw in Einstein's philosophy of time. A specific experiment that can
confirm this flaw is the
photon-experiment.

To bring gravity into the picture Einstein had to extend his 1905 Lorentz
transformations and had to invent a "curved space-time" called general
relativity. Of course, if the 1905 theory is wrong then general relativity
cannot be reality.

In fact, Einstein's 1905 paper had a "derivation" that showed how the
postulates led to special relativity's equations, and once it became apparent
that the postulates were true it led all the crowd to accept that the equations
"derived" from the postulates must be therefore true (because they are "derived"
from the postulates, and that means all is settled). Einstein's derivation was
based on unstated assumptions (physics professors for a 100 years have not been
able to see this, and none of the hundreds of published accounts and versions of
this derivation realizes this). It is accepted today by all physics professors
that the postulates and the equations are the same since the latter is derived
from the former. The only exception to the physics crowd was one
highly-respected physicist who suggested in the mid- 20th century
that the special relativity's postulates may lead to be a different bunch of
equations and relativity's equations could be entirely wrong. (Of course it
could be possible that some physicists in these hundred years were independent
thinkers and not just "mediocre minds" and boldly tried to see if they could find
alternative equations consistent with the postulates, but failed; however, since
I succeeded here it would be further blowing my own trumpet). What was
the name of this lone highly-respected physicist who suggested in
mid-20th century that Einstein's derivation was based on unstated assumptions
and thus could be wrong? You can find the answer on p.8 of my paper. See below
for an analysis of what this rebel (who we I call "A" said):

"A" said: Physics may need to abandon "continuous structures." "In that case,
nothing remains [of relativity and its equations]." He never doubted that
special relativity's postulates were correct. But special relativity has two
parts, the postulates and the equations. His statement meant that he began to
doubt that the equations were necessarily correct, given they were based on
unstated assumptions such as continuous motion. Ask any physics professor
today -- Stanford, Cambridge...anywhere they will confirm the derivation is
correct, many adding that derivation is so "beautiful" (a popular word used to
describe Einstein's derivation by non-questioning, mediocre physics minds over
the century). But what was "A" thinking that all these physicists could not even
imagine?

Well, "A" (above), the lone person to suggest that the derivation had hidden
assumptions that could mean the equations were wrong was no other than Albert
Einstein and he expressed this fear in 1954, one year before his death. In fact
Einstein's thinking was moving away from the assumption of "continuous", as his
quote on p.8 of my paper shows. Einstein's fear was in fact right on the mark.
But Einstein's bigger wrong unstated assumption was "linear" velocity addition
(details below), as explained in our paper.

In January 2005 we found the correct equations that are consistent with the two
postulates of special relativity. Key motivations for our paper were: (1)
disagreement with Einstein's view of the nature
of time (a "yawn" issue for today's physicists, most of whom do no philosophical
thinking on this or any other physics matters, but a deep one for philosophers
and scientists (including Einstein) through the ages) (2) a need to bring in an infinity into the mathematics of
relativity, that could
explain why all observers always see light moving at the same speed, no matter
how fast the observer is him/her self moving (in mathematics such behavior is a
property of infinity, and infinity is missing from Einstein's 1905 paper!) (3) a
desire to remove the "length contraction" claim of
relativity, which we felt was dubious and could cause too many physics issues
(and thus was unlikely to actually happen in the physical world). In our paper we accept both the postulates of special relativity,
show that Einstein's "derivation" was flawed, and state the correct
equations which show that different time measurements will happen for different
observers, but NOT different length measurements (experiments have confirmed the
former but no experiment has confirmed the latter). However, the
photon-experiment
(below) we specify will NOT show the non-simultaneous behavior that relativity
predicts, because the two theories make different time measurement predictions
in this case .

If you don't want to read the paper, let us just summarize a few points from
it.

Our paper says (material) objects do not move continuously, while light does,
and we introduce "discrete motion." Regarding observers measuring different
times, on p. 6 of paper we explain: "Thus the different jump lengths (of
discrete motion) of the object as seen by the observers is responsible for
different time measurements."

We get the same different time measurements
by observers that relativity gets (in the case of some clocks).

But on p. 7 of our paper we show a simple photon-clock for which different
observers will measure same time, in violation of relativity. This is the clock
we refer to at top of page, in our above
letter
to Dr. Chou, as now being technologically possible. In our theory, as in
relativity, two events may be simultaneous as seen by one observer but not by
the other. However for the case of ux = c we will have t0
= t and relativity's thought experiments centered around this case will fail to
create the non-simultaneity predicted by relativity. The case ux = c
is special because of the infinity that relates to c in the mathematics of our
paper. It should be possible to set up a clock based on ux = c to
experimentally confirm that t0 = t (Details are in the paper
for how this kind of clock will NOT show any time dilation).

(For those
who do not know what ux = c is about, it refers to cases such as below
traincar experiment)

The
Photon Experiment suggested by Einstein that we are urging experimenters to
perform, in some table-top form

Consider the famous traincar-and-platform thought experiment,
suggested by Einstein (actually Einstein suggested a slightly different
version, but we choose below version because this seems most widely used
nowadays to illustrate the implications of special relativity).

This (thought) experiment consists of one observer midway inside a
speeding traincar and another observer standing on the platform as the train moves
past.

A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just
as the two observers pass each other. The observer onboard the train sees the
front and back of the traincar at fixed distances from the source of light and
as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of
the traincar at the same time (simultaneously).

The observer standing on
the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching
up) toward the point at which the flash was given off and the front of the
traincar moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same for
all observers (a fact our paper acknowledges as true), the light headed for the
back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the
front. Thus, special relativity notes, the observer on the platform will
see the flashes of light strike the ends of the traincar at different times
(and the event of light striking the ends will appear
non-simultaneous to this observer).

Why would above not happen, even though it seems
perfectly reasonably explained. Again, in our paper, different observers can
measure different times but NOT in this specific case. Here the light will be
seen by both to strike the ends of the traincar
simultaneously.

The predicted non-simultaneity will NOT happen,
because Einstein's velocity addition is "linear" just as a Newton's was.
Einstein failed to abandon this flaw in of "linear" thinking in Newton's laws
and thus failed to get the right equations. Let me note here that Newton did not
have any data that would suggest that light is not obeying classical velocity addition, so there was no reason for him to think beyond
classical velocity addition. Einstein had the facts about the behavior of light but
was unable to abandon the "linear" thinking of classical physics, and built
relativity on this continued and flawed "linear" thinking. From p. 6 of our paper: "This
(ux+v) term denoting simple "linear" addition appears in both
Newtonian physics and relativity. In relativity (ux+v) is not the
speed of the object as seen by either observer but is still a linear velocity
addition. In our theory velocity addition is not linear."

From p. 10:
"Relativity's prediction of different time measurement by observers has been
experimentally confirmed and in certain cases our theory gives the same factor
relating time measurements as relativity. But the theories differ fundamentally
on the nature of time and we have mentioned how to use time measurements to
experimentally test between the theories."

How does one get the table-top traincar in
the above proposed experiment to travel at high enough speed? Well, one doesn't
need a speed with that many zeros, because these zeros can be provided by the
other device in the experiment -- "The fastest high speed camera has the ability
to take pictures at a speed of 200 million frames per second"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_camera

We need a experimentalist who,
like Einstein, would classify as a "great spirit" and who can move away from
these ordinary matter clocks and build the right clock, as suggested
above. Beyond issues dealing with relativity, we believe this experiment will
give a result that also settles the ageless philosophical debate on the nature
of time.

We show how physicists are wrong even
about what "classical physics" said about time, and failed to realize a key
subtlety.

We have been saying since 2005 in our
paper that, while different observes will measure different
times in many cases, Einstein's time-dilation equations are wrong, and we give the
correct equations.

Forget relativity’s equations about
time dilation, even relativity’s claim about time itself being an independent
physical quantity (its equations require this) is wrong. Our
paper also shows how to build a clock that will not undergo any time
dilation at all.

Physicists are wrong even about what
"classical physics" (i.e.pre-Einstein physics) said about time,
and failed to realize a key subtlety. Physics books
widely state that in classical physics time was "absolute " by which they mean
that is was an independent quantity that "flows" at a constant pace. Doesn’t
matter what these books say, they are ALL wrong! No equation of classical
physics implies any such thing about time, and if physics is equations then
these writers failed to even understand Newton’s laws and equations, and what
these equations imply about time. (They went for some Newton quotation from here
and there, but those quotes are not physics, they are just secondary opinion
with no physics to back it up. You can either go after the superfluous OR you
can try to understand physics and what it implies; physics writers have
unanimously chosen the former when it comes to Newtonian Physics and Time).
Unfortunately and shockingly, Einstein, throughout his life, held the
same wrong view that in "classical physics" "absolute time" "flow[s]" (quotes
from pp. 186, 206 of the 1938 book, "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert
Einstein and Leopold Infeld).

Einstein’s physics and Einstein’s equations were the first time that
physics was requiredto incorporate the
claim that time "flows" as
an actual independent physical quantity; this claim about time we consider to be
highly questionable philosophically, and this was a major motivation in our
finding alternative equations that are consistent with Einstein’s two
postulates.

Below paragraph, taken unedited from
p.7 of our paper, gives the actual situation about
classical and relativistic time.

While doing away with the concept
of "absolute time," relativity presented a new thesis of "relative time flow"
between inertial frames. We do not take the absolute time of Newtonian physics
to have meant that time itself "flows" as an independent physical quantity -- it
only meant that the equations worked in such a way that all observers measured
the same time for the same event. We could attempt to make a similar statement
about observers in different frames and relativity's relative time -- however,
in relativity time is an independent physical quantity and we have actual time
dilation.

Let me state again that the paper makes a simple technical point:
it is possible to form an alternative set of space-time equations that are
consistent Einstein's own postulates, and states these equations! Thus the
claims by Einstein and all physicists that that special relativity's two
postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations is shown to be
wrong. How much simpler in its thesis and in its invite to find a flaw in the
technical arguments could a paper be?

Starting January, 2005 the paper with the same space-time
equations (but changes in text/sections between versions) was submitted to about
a dozen journals, and rejected by all, mostly with no attempt to have the paper
refereed or to address the merits of the paper. But Howard Georgi of Physics
Letters B stood out in showing editorial power by issuing a lifetime ban from
the journal (details below). The very first journal I sent it to rejected the
paper without sending it to a referee with the editor saying: "I have read your
paper with interest but regret that it is not suitable for publication in" the
journal. There were a couple of positive experiences, but mainly from one
journal (and a big name one!) not controlled by professors but by a team of
editorial professionals. They addressed the content itself in a non-dismissive
and non-evasive manner and agreed that it was an experimentally testable
alternative and they could not see any technical flaw, but that given the
absolute acceptance the current theory has they did not feel it was the right
time for their high-profile journal to publish the paper. But physics
professors, who run almost all the journals (as editors), were simply not open to the
possibility of Einstein's Special Relativity being wrong; these editors proved incapable
of being able to examine with an open mind a paper that goes against what is
deemed sacred in physics and refused to send my paper to referees. Either I have
a valid counter-example to Einstein's derivation or I don't. No editor was able
to get me a referee report stating that I don't! One editor did get me a referee
report, and that report is below!

Special Relativity to most physics professors is about as sacred
as earth-centered word of God was to the church, and they get as angry at anyone
questioning it, just as the church did at Galileo's blasphemy! Yes,
modifications, that limit down to Special Relativity's equations can be
considered for publication, but not an overthrow of its basics.

Why are journals unwilling to address the technical merits
of the paper as intelligent people should do? The answer might be: Editors then
and now!

2005-now: Hardball editors whose
agenda for decades has been to preserve the party-line and banish papers that
point out problems with "approved" theories, thus contributing to a theoretical
crisis in physics*.(The theoretical crisis is that Einstein's general relativity
is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, so one of these has to be junked or
substantially modified!)*I must make a note that not all editors are
themselves hardball; I got the feeling some do not seem to like the religion-like
rigidity of the system that is forced upon them, and long for Einstein's time
when original thought that challenged the foundations was quite publishable.

My paper (with below letter) was submitted to Professor Howard Georgi,
Editor, Physics Letter B. Note that the referee found no specific fault in the
paper whatsoever. The referee and editor seem to have gotten rather angry at
the suggestion that special relativity can be wrong, and anger and objectivity
do not make good partners. Einstein talked of "violent
opposition" from physicists. Below is a prime example of such violent
reaction.

Dear Esteemed Professor Georgi:

I would like to submit my paper
entitled “Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light” for publication
in Physics Letters B. I attach a Latex copy as file “Space Duality PLB.tex”. I
also attach a PDF version of the same file.

I am aware of your
interest in special relativity and related issues.

The paper
accepts both the postulates of special relativity, but states that
electromagnetic waves move continuously through space while mass moves
discretely. Velocity addition rules for such motion are introduced, and from
these the second postulate of special relativity is derived. Two ways in which
the theory differs from special relativity is that it provides an explanation
(by bringing in an actual infinity for speed of light) for why an observer
cannot catch up to light and its motion equations do not contain any length
contraction.

The presented theory gives mathematical equations and
experiments to verify the predictions. Thus if your referee(s) would challenge
it, they must do so by addressing these specifics rather than on the basis of
their surprise and their bias in favor of the established theory. My theory
presents an interesting alternative and I am therefore requesting speedy
publication. I urge that the referee(s) be someone open to a new approach and
not be a researcher whose work assumes general relativity to be
true.

I agree with
the referee that your manuscript is not acceptable for Physics Letters B.
Please do not resubmit it or submit other papers to PLB. I will not be able
to aknowledge [sic] further submissions.

There is no physics in this paper. The author seems to
believe that his personal guesses about how to modify relativity are
interesting, but most readers of PLB will not agree. He seems unaware that
special relativity is actually one of the most thoroughly test [sic]
theories in science, and he cannot just make up alternatives. The editor
should decline to accept future submissions from this author, because this
sort of nonsense is a waste of everyone's
time.

Is special relativity "one of the most
thoroughly tested theories in science" (emphasis mine)? I don't think so,
and have above given a specific experimental test it will fail. However, in 1905
Newton's equations of motion were certainly one of the most
thoroughly tested theories not just in science but in everyday life (motion of
all objects). How come Einstein could "make up alternatives" and publish them?

Howard Georgi's relationship to special relativity and how he
continues to teach an incorrect derivation to his students, year after year,
though knowing full well that it is incorrect: Georgi has for years been
regularly teaching a course on special relativity. This course includes a formal
derivation of Einstein's 1905 equations (Lorentz Transformations) starting from the two postulates.
The derivation shows how Einstein's 1905 postulates necessarily lead to
the Lorentz Transformations. Here
is the Derivation,
downloaded from Course Site on April 2 2007 (see link to course site).
That derivation is, of course, all wrong since our paper is a counter-example to
the "derivation" (because our paper shows that another set of equations are also
consistent the two postulates ). Whether correct or not, they will still
continue to teach the derivation as correct all over the world, because they
rule :-) Well, the church continued to play this kind of game
and could teach what they wanted, so why should physics professors not have the
same freedom to continue to teach their students a derivation they know is incorrect? :-)

Howard Georgi, like many of his colleagues, seems to be a more a priest than
a physicist. At Galilieo's time some of the highly-intelligent priests in the
church must have realized that their sacred statements were facing serious
challenge, but instead of facing reality they turned to prosecution and banned
all publication of Galileo's work (perhaps
thinking that, with their power, they could also confiscate telescopesforever)! Telescopes could not be taken away and similarly, with
technology, experiments that go deeper into testing special relativity cannot be
stopped. The priests would say there are no deeper experiments needed, we can
look up and see everything goes around the earth, isn't that test enough? No,
one must make full use of technology available to test even the accepted
foundations, that is the lesson learned from history! You can do tests today one
could not dream of a few decades ago, as Dr. Chou and his team have shown.

Einstein, by the way, was a true philosopher and physicist. He would never
have approved of Howard Georgi and the like. If one had a paper that is a
counter-example to Einstein's derivation that his postulates necessarily lead to
the Special Relativity's Lorentz transformations, Einstein would have responded
with intelligence, not anger!

The above described experiment,
we predict, will be the end of Einstein's 1905 theory and its philosophy of
so-called "spacetime." It might be time to face the new possibilities, however
disturbing they might be to one's absolute faith in special relativity.
Physicists have put all their eggs in one basket and that basket will very soon be
broken because experimental technology has caught up and some decisive
experiment, such as a version
of above famous experiment which was only supposed to be a "thought
experiment," will actually be done.

News - Feb 2011:
Fields
Medalist specializing in GR-QFT-Strings writes expressing reservation but not
dismissing the paper. (If my paper is correct it would particularly be bad news
for people in these particular fields).

Feb 2011: My gratitude and thanks to Professor [Y1], Fields
Medalist for writing back, despite the reality that that if my paper is correct
it would particularly be bad news for his own work.

-----------------------------------------------
I wrote a letter to Fields Medalist [Y1] stating:

Strings is a favorite among the community (and you are part of that), and your
own physics work PARTICULARLY assumes special relativity to be true (QFT). So
why should I be asking the "enemy" camp to go against their own thinking.
Because Einstein was a free thinker and Einstein in 1954 was open to go against
his own original thinking.

-----------------------------------------------
I got the reply:

I don't want to take the time to carefully read your paper and will only make
some comments.

I find painful the way you speak in term of length or time contraction. For me
the natural way to state special relativity is to say that space time is a
Minkowski space. This dictates the notion of inertial coordinate system and the
formula for the change from one such coordinates system to another. I could not
make sense of what you propose instead. I don't see either how your jumping
matter story could make sense independently of the chosen inertial coordinate
system. Less importantly, it also seems gratuitous.

Physicists surely don't see special relativity as sacred, as for them it is only
an approximation of general relativity; while Maxwell equations can be stated
independently of the observer in special relativity, gravity cannot : only in
general relativity both can be.

-----------------------------------------------
I wrote back:

Thank you very much for replying, and I know how precious your time is.

Behavior of the physics establishment is evidence that special relativity indeed
IS sacred! Special relativity has a derivation of the Lorentz transformations
from the postulates, to which I have a counter-example. Journals will not
acknowledge that I have a counterexample, nor can they find an error in my paper
saying why I don't. Journals and professors can't get themselves to face that
Einstein's 1905 derivation was invalid any more than the church could face
Galileo's evidence. As my website says: "The church continued to teach what they
wanted, so why should physics professors not have the same freedom to continue
to teach their students a derivation they know is incorrect?"

For you general relativity, quantum field theory, strings and their mathematics
is part of daily language. But note that the order of appearance of these
theories: Special Relativity in 1905 with Minkowski spacetime formalism
following, then general relativity in 1915 (which was aimed to be consistent
with special relativity, it wasn't an independent theory that further confirmed
special relativity) and then these more modern theories, all based on being
consistent with relativity (special and general).

Note that "jumping matter" is just discrete motion and my equations have the
same two coordinate systems (and observers) as special relativity. If you "don't
want to take the time to carefully read [the] paper" then I cannot help you
further on this; the paper is an easy read and answers your questions.

You write: "I find painful the way you speak in term of length or time
contraction. For me the natural way to state special relativity is to say that
space time is a Minkowski space." I agree, but I put it this way on website only
in the informal notes on my 3 philosophical motivations which caused me to look
for an alternative to special relativity. The PDF paper which is the actual
physics paper does not contain these informal comments.

The notes on my 3 philosophical motivations may have been welcomed by Einstein.
As Einstein states: "This independence created by philosophical insight is - in
my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a
real seeker after truth." Going beyond what can be termed "empty" philosophical
rambling of reasons to question special relativity, we give the correct space
and time physics equations and how to test them.

Special relativity and my theory make many of the same predictions and these
have been experimentally tested to be correct; they differ on the basic nature
of space and time. I have suggested the kind of experiment, which I believe can
be done today, which can be proof that special relativity is wrong and my theory
right.

You take the risk of addressing controversial physics issues (despite your
star-stature and my zero-stature); the current physics establishment would use
this stature advantage to ignore or suppress controversial matters that could
potentially devastate their life’s work (yes, I know you will not agree with
this view of the establishment, but I believe that power corrupts!). You
represent the best of human intellect and the academic world could learn a lot
from you. (I certainly have)! I end with the highest respect.

News - Jan 2011: Physics Nobel Prize
winner, in replying to an email about the behavior of physics authorities
regarding my paper, suggests the possibility of abuse of power by these physics
authorities.

Jan 2011: My gratitude and thanks to Professor [Z1], Nobel
Prize winner in Physics, for standing up and acknowledging the possibility of
abuse of power by physics authorities. Given the hostile behavior towards my paper by
the powers-that-be and their journals, I had expressed this possibility in a
letter to Professor [X1], another Nobel Prize winner in Physics. The letter was
sent to [X1] with CC to [Z1] and other prominent physicists.

I wrote a letter and a follow-up letter to a Physics Nobel Prize winner [X1],
with CC to same group, challenging them "to confidently tell me that I DO NOT
have a counter-example." I expressed to them that view:
"The powerful church heads in Galileo's time were another example of exact same
behavior that physicists are [now] exhibiting," when they are not able to state
that I do NOT have a counter-example, "just like Howard Georgi and his referee
could not while giving me a lifetime ban."

-----------------------------------------------
In the follow-up up letter to Physics Nobel Prize winner [X1] I further stated:
"[W]hat does it take for good people to do evil things? When people come into a
position of authority (political, scientific, financial etc.) they often get
consumed by power! They begin to demand a world where, in their domains, "what
they say goes!" Power corrupts many or most good people, but not all good
people."

Thanks to to Nobel laureate Professor [Z1] for replying and marking his mail to
all the physicists the letter was sent to, with this note on my above quote:
"That makes a lot of sense to me!"
--------------------------------------
In my opinion, the physics authorities are no better than those in other
professions, when it comes to being corrupted by power. Physicists also have to
grovel before power and, to have a career, they have to build on the papers of
the powers-that-be. Doing independent thinking, and questioning foundations that
the physics authorities have declared "absolute faith" in and built their
life-work on, would ruin a physicist's career by making him/her a pariah
overnight! A new major theory could be okay if it limits down to the equations
of the accepted one, but going beyond that to overthrow the foundations is an
absolute "No-no"! Physics authorities will not allow a rethinking of special
relativity, given the century of work that generations of physics powers-that-be
have built on the assumption that it is correct. In this end this evasion
will just compound the disaster, because special relativity will eventually fall on
experiment (such as the one suggested above).

The above emails to [X1] had the subject: Your friend Howard Georgi,
Special Relativity, and Religious barriers.

I will continue my battle because it is wrong for physics authorities like
Georgi, his referee, and (seemingly) his powerful friends such as [X1], to
withhold information from their physicist peers. Attacking someone's paper is
fair game, but withholding it from a wider audience because it would disrupt
accepted thinking is wrongdoing (unless the paper is obviously flawed). As I
explained in my letter to [X1]:
"If special relativity goes down, what a disaster it will be for people's life
work which is built on theories that are built on assuming special relativity to
be correct; the cause of this disaster would be that special relativity was
protected by the church! If physicists had been allowed to know that the 1905
derivation was invalid and had seen alternatives, some of them might have been
chosen to pause and think, rather than blindly follow the church of "Absolute
Faith in Special Relativity." "

Identities of Nobel Prize Winners [X1] and [Z1] will be
released later, my major aim is to address the physics issues in my paper, and
the communication with [X1] and [Z1] went to larger issues.

August 2013:
We abandon the stance in previous sentence and declare [X1] to be Professor Steven Weinberg. He
plays the role of villainous leader whose Absolute Faith in
Special Relativity leads him to abuse his power and withhold knowledge
from fellow physicists that may make them question the 1905 Special Relativity
scriptures .
Weinberg's friend Howard Georgi has his full support to keep teaching to students what
both Weinberg and Georgi know (or should know, given that there is now a
counter-example) to be a wrong derivation. This is
today's physics!

End of Part I.

Go to Part II.Part II deals with the issue in a wider sense and discusses:
Thomas Kuhn, The Messy Business called Physics,
and the Powers-That-Be who Run the Current Mess. Also
examination of some of the arguments proactive
physicist-leaders have offered about the nature of Science,
Religion and God;Jokes (or attempts at humor)
regarding today's physics and physicist-leaders
included.